Do you use doublethink?

[Spamtar]

Its a good exercise.
Doublethink, with me, doubles the pleasure. It is pragmatic; flexible, even at its worst.
Not to get caught up in semantics but “Double-conclusion” I think is more ominous and a more succinct word (if there is not such a word yet then now there is) to the hypocrisy portrayed in 1984.

It reminds me of the following...
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say

 

[xisnotx]

I concede.

I've seen it. And that's what the book (1984) was about...abusing power by controlling thoughts.

I think I just did as well. I don't know..it was ugly.
It was probably necessary...I was too curios/foolish to not to. Still am..might still be doing it.
Flawed or not...that isn't something I can be..or do. I mean I can..but I'm not doing that.

I bet no one knows what I'm talking about. It needs to stay like that...
Good news..I guess I have a new question now.."Why do people spend all their time wanting something that I don't want?" Hopefully there is an answer. A singular truth. Life continues.

 

[Orangey]

It reminds me more of this:

"I ca'n't believe that!" said Alice.

"Ca'n't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said "one ca'n't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

 

[Bamboo]

You're awfully sure that the knowledge you have is so irreparably damaging to the psyche. I dunno, I'm sure other people have figured it out before, too, and lived to tell the tale.

 

[xisnotx]

you know?

dont answer.

 

[Bamboo]

Hey, it's ok. Just relax a little, it's probably not as bad as it seems.

 

[Qre:us]

The thing itself doesn't, but in our heads it does.The thing is nothing more than an object. In our mind we make a subject of it, trying to get as close to the object as we can. Those two can get very contradictory.

What? That doesn't make sense.

If our mind is the one in control of how we're perceiving the object, then, there's no contradiction within the mind, even if there's contradiction between what our mind perceives and the reality of the object - as long as there's consistency within our mind, it is not doublethink.

That's why I said "if we agree on". I'm not saying it's "true". I was just playing with the thought, what if it were limitless. I know a lot of people who don't believe in infinity. They think of everything as limited.

What was limitless?

You are talking about the subject in a vague, evasive manner, but I'm not seeing you directly respond to the points raised by me to your initial post.

So if I said something strange, I blame our language differences.

That's not a limit of our language barrier, it's a limit of the thoughts you're producing......as you clearly have enough grasp to hash out your thoughts, in the manner you've done thus far (such as they were).


So, it reads to me, as you being evasive by answering with a "non-answer", just for the pretense of answering.

 

[xisnotx]

You people suck...all of you. How do people do this to their children?
lol
You do this for fun...I'm so blind..I guess I'm doing it too...

I think I might just have to do it. And I'm only 21. I mean..why shouldn't I?

 

[A window to the soul]

War is Peace

The Encarta definition of 'doublethink' seems to be a synonym for 'paradox' where it would appear someone is contradicting themselves, but not necessarily so. Both terms seem loosely defined to me, as doublethink is defined as "consciously or unconsciously holding opposing ideas at the same time" and paradox as, "seemingly self-contradictory" ideas/qualities. But again, the opposing ideas may in fact be true. For example, when someone says "war is peace". That fits the Encarta definition of both doublethink and paradox, as far as I understand. I don't have a good feel for the connotations of these two words, nor do I recall reading Goerge Orwell's novel, so my thoughts on this may not make sense to everyone. Depending on how you look at the statement "war is peace", it is in fact a true statement (when looking at it as a "cause and effect"). I think the beauty of it is that 'doublethink' makes us think.

 

[nolla]

Hey, cool, I didn't know there's a word for this!

do you use doublethink?

Yes. Except that I'm not completely sure if the beliefs are 100% contradictions. For example, I can reason that I am 100% determined and that I have 100% free will, but to do this I need to use two different perspectives. So, I'm not actually sure if it is possible to use one perspective and doublethink.

Do you find that it helps you deal better with some aspects of your life to do so?

Yes. It is an extremely important tool for creating a peace of mind. I guess I would never have gotten rid of my anxiety concerning existential problems without it. Besides, to see the opposing views as equally true means that your perception is clean of presumptions.

 

[BlueGray]

Who is the observer?

Arbitrary.

 

[nolla]

Hmm... I didn't realize that this idea is so flammable before I skimmed through a bit... Does this example help (I'm sorry if it was mentioned, I was bored to read everything):

Objective reality is seen through subjective reality by the individual.
Subjective reality is seen through objectivity by group.

So, objectivity is a small slice of subjectivity. It is a specialized way for me to think. But then again from objectivity's point of view subjectivity is a small slice of the world that the objectivity perceives and measures. Can I choose between these? If I had to choose, I would have to choose subjectivity, since it is closer to me, and if I would choose objectivity I would have to abandon all other forms of thinking except this specialized way. Ironically, the latter choice seems less reasonable.

 

[Litvyak]

Good. At least, you recognize the importance of conforming to logic. Now to validate that statement...

I recognize the boundaries and relative nature of what you call "logic".
But of course you can never admit how potentially flawed the human cognition is, since that would reveal your weakness in relying only on your ridiculously limited mind.

 

[Craft]

I recognize the boundaries and relative nature of what you call "logic".

The point of logic is non-relativity. If it is not objective, then it is not logic. To understand and apply, there must be knowledge. to gain knowledge, there must logic. Hence, you have the wrong idea of logic.

But of course you can never admit how potentially flawed the human cognition is, since that would reveal your weakness in relying only on your ridiculously limited mind.

well..first...you have to define what a "flaw" is and then you have to define whether something is a flaw or not. On what basis?

 

[Litvyak]

Let me put it this way, then: there is no logic. I'll leave the definitions to you.

 

[nolla]

The point of logic is non-relativity. If it is not objective, then it is not logic. To understand and apply, there must be knowledge. to gain knowledge, there must logic. Hence, you have the wrong idea of logic.

Hmmm... This is interesting the way it relates to my earlier post. If you look at the scientific consensus (being a person yourself), you see the whole there that the people have decided to be the most credible world view. If you don't go through it step by step yourself, it is not logic yet, right? Because if you admit the view without testing it, you are not being logical yet, you just admit the group view to be your view too. But if you yourself go through it, it becomes integrated in your subjective logic logically. It will be integrated in any case if you admit it as true, but only by going through it yourself you would make it logical. So, subjective logic is the key in understanding anything. Of course, no one has time for it. It's easy to just take the group logic as it is. Maybe the trick is to know when to take it and when to think things through.

 

[Craft]

Hmmm... This is interesting the way it relates to my earlier post. If you look at the scientific consensus (being a person yourself), you see the whole there that the people have decided to be the most credible world view. If you don't go through it step by step yourself, it is not logic yet, right? Because if you admit the view without testing it, you are not being logical yet, you just admit the group view to be your view too. But if you yourself go through it, it becomes integrated in your subjective logic logically. It will be integrated in any case if you admit it as true, but only by going through it yourself you would make it logical. So, subjective logic is the key in understanding anything. Of course, no one has time for it. It's easy to just take the group logic as it is. Maybe the trick is to know when to take it and when to think things through.

Here, you bring people. Most often, they are illogical. Most likely, they will pursue the weaker means when, in fact, better though more complicated means exists. People in the future laughs at people in the past and the people in the future of the future does the same. Myself included, of course.

"Group Logic" is a type of "Subjective Logic." A collective of individuals is as much as a subject as a person. And subjective logic is vastly different from "Logic" in that it shouldn't even be called "logic." Morelike, subjective understanding. Then again, this is my subjective understanding.

What is "logical" is difficult to determine, but this thread is basically denying logic itself.

Of course, no one has time for it. It's easy to just take the group logic as it is. Maybe the trick is to know when to take it and when to think things through.

I disagree. Eventually, you will have to go through it, so eventually, you will have to make time for it. I reckon "Group Understanding" fails more than "individual understanding."

 

[Rasofy]

I need a lot of time but i usually take a stance on matters (which usually isn't very ridig tough).
As an example, I agree with both '' vegan is good'' and ''vegan is bad''.
While i consider vegan diet a healthy choise, I still think it could be improved with a bit of meat and dairy.
Do I qualify?

 

[nolla]

I disagree. Eventually, you will have to go through it, so eventually, you will have to make time for it. I reckon "Group Understanding" fails more than "individual understanding."

I don't think that most people really concentrate on this. They do take the group understanding because to go through the ideas would need an effort. You said it yourself, most people are illogical. You really think that they will eventually outgrow this?

 

[Craft]

I need a lot of time but i usually take a stance on matters (which usually isn't very ridig tough).
As an example, I agree with both '' vegan is good'' and ''vegan is bad''.
While i consider vegan diet a healthy choise, I still think it could be improved with a bit of meat and dairy.
Do I qualify?

You mean vegan is *partly* good and bad?

You really think that they will eventually outgrow this?

No. I mean, that for efficiency, self-judgment is necessary.